I love you.

I'm not completely sure actually. On the one hand, i don't think there should be any level scaling since it removes the whole point in becoming better. On the other hand i think it might be necessary to keep the game atleast somewhat challenging and entertaining for very high level characters. It just need's to be done better than in Oblivion and in much much smaller doses. You need to feel that your character becomes stronger, that there is a point in leveling up. Only the creatures and animals should scale "a little" to your level. And there should still be places you simpley can't go as a low level or even mid level character.

The problem with having no level scaling is that you run into the situation of high-level characters trampling all over even the toughest opposition. Complaints about this happening in Morrowind led to the use of scaling in Oblivion, which in turn has generated complaints about the response to the earlier complaints.

Any 'static' creature placement system will inevitably run into the issue of the PC overwhelming all opposition, since the creatures themselves do not improve over time while the PC does. By contrast, a scaled system can at least allow the creatures to keep pace with the PC and thus still present a challenge at high levels. Now, a system wherein the PC does not eventually outstrip the opposition to at least some degree can make it feel like leveling is futile; to an extent I suppose it is, however the PC is, in fact, getting more powerful with each level despite not appearing to due to the creatures improving in order to keep up.

I will grant that in certain cases, notably Goblins and Ogres, the amount of increase in some areas the creatures get each level is a bit excessive; however, that is not, in and of itself, an indictment of the scaling system on the whole, but rather a failure to properly test high-level combat against the more egregious examples of scaling. I am quite certain that had these opponents been repeatedly run by L50+ characters during testing, the amounts by which they scale would have been significantly lowered. Of course, I cannot prove this to be so, but a cursory glance at the numeric values in the appropriate fields in the CS combined with some simple math makes a pretty good case for it.

Another issue I have frequently seen mentioned is the 'creature swap' phenomenon that occurs at transition levels in the creature lists. I happen to agree that it is rather odd to suddenly see a new group of creatures start spawning where previously there had been only Imps or Rats, however at the same time I recognize that even the baddest Imp or Rat will only ever offer so much challenge, and as such I can understand why more powerful creatures are introduced in their place. Perhaps what is needed here is a 'regional list', wherein are ensconced all the creatures eligible to spawn in the region and the levels at which they are eligible to spawn. These levels would be loosely tied to the PC's level, in that for any given range of levels the PC occupies, a particular level of a given creature would be eligible to spawn. For example: at levels 5-9 a PC might encounter the first tier of the various creatures that region has to offer, while at 24-29 said PC would run into significantly more powerful versions. The level ranges for the creatures would all be capped at various points (Ogres might cap at 40, say, while Rats might cap at 10), but they would still be eligible to spawn even if their max level was well below the current one of the PC.

Whether or not their should be any creatures who do not cap at a point below the maximum normally attainable by the PC is a tricky subject. I would argue that there should be at least a few who do not fall behind the PC, but at the same time that these should be used sparingly rather than showing up in almost every interior when the PC reaches the appropriate level(s). This would allow those who wish to have challenging fights at high levels to seek out the places these creatures spawn, while at the same time those who wish to fight lower-order opposition can still do so by seeking out those locations. Does this blunt exploration? Perhaps, but then it would be a case of the individual player choosing to forgo exploring the high-end locations due to not wanting to deal with the opposition. To go along with this, I would not place any 'essential' loot in the top-end locations, although there would still be some fairly powerful items that could be obtained should one choose to take on the guardians thereof.

Why should this be the case? Not even involving advanced AI (which allows for a group of diverse NPCs to work together to bring any PC down), the game designers have all the tools in their hand to design encounters which are hard no matter what level the char is. Imagine someone who fires off an area-of-effect Dispel Magic or Disintegrate Armor spell (possibly both) if he thinks someone is near, but can't see him (to combat Invisibility and Chameleon), switching to attacking from afar (possibly with bow and arrows) if the PC has high Reflect Damage, has a high (possibly 100%) Reflect Damage and Spell Absorption himself, as well as Levitation and Water Walking or Water Breathing, and uses spells and poisons with Damage Strength, Damage Speed and Burden to maintain distance as well as gain time to hide and heal themselves. Oh, and also uses various potions, of which he has about 50 on him.

Such an opponent could be readily dispatched by sneaky archer characters, since they can kill him before he does any of those. By contrast, a melee character or mage would be facing a (nearly) impossible task as everything they threw at such an opponent would be reflected back at them while their own such protections were canceled by the Dispel/Disintegrate.

The other issue is that said NPC wouldn't know in which direction to cast the nullification spell unless he always knew where the PC entered the room, and 'psychic' NPCs are complained about enough already.

Basically, the problem with 'perfect' opponents is that nobody ever wants to fight them because they are a complete pain in the ass, and are also often not worth fighting in the first place as the reward rarely compares to the hassle involved in getting it.

More broadly, the comment addressed the fact that, such opponents aside, nothing else would even be remotely challenging to a high-level fully-kitted character wielding customized items and/or spells. While I am all for providing challenging opponents for high-end characters, as my later paragraphs mention, there comes a point in opponent difficulty where it goes from 'challenging' to 'tedious', as exemplified by fighting L40+ Goblins or Ogres in Oblivion without using modded items or spells. That these creatures rarely (exc. some Goblin Warlords) drop any loot worth bothering with (unless you're collecting Ogre teeth for Alchemical use) does not help either.

I was also working off of comments by Morrowind veterans, who have provided numerous examples of how even the highest-end creatures/NPCs are no match for a character who is 20+ levels higher than they are, and how you need the Bloodmoon (I think it was) expansion to get ones a L50+ character can be challenged (and even stomped, in some cases) by. I also drew on comments about that in turn, wherein some folks said how it strained (or even broke) their suspension of belief to get whooped on by what were essentially fur-clad barbarians that by all rights should have had no chance against a top-end PC. I will grant I may have missed something in said comments, but that was the gist I got from them.

In other words, while I would like to see opposition that a high-end character has to work at defeating, what I most emphatically do NOT want to see is the use of 'artificial difficulty' hacks such as immense HP reserves or defenses so perfect that only a specifically tailored build can even hope to crack them. Can a creature/NPC meant to take on high-end characters be created without the use of such? I honestly do not know, but I assume it is possible since the foundation for doing so already exists within Oblivion's scaling system, albeit in imperfect form.

This assumes the NPC is even in the area where the sneaky archer char can do that.



Area of effect spell. Traps. If a trap triggers or gets disarmed, the NPC casts on that area.



Wait ...

Wasn't the complain just now that you can't have hard opponents without level scaling? Now you complain that the NPC is too hard all of sudden ...




This was just one example, without any advanced AI behind it. With the AI, there are a ton of other ways to challenge a high-level char, such as a group of NPCs working intelligently together, lying traps and luring him into them. So, you're wrong. This isn't a special opponent, this is just an example out of very many possibilities.

And that does already assume the PC's goal is to defend just his own hide. What if he has to defend someone else? Or an unmovable object? What if he's not allowed to kill the other NPC, but the test is in rendering him incapable of fighting, or to delay him a certain amount of time?

But it is a special opponent, and now you are adding preconditions to make the encounter favorable to said opponent by eliminating any possible advantage the PC might have. For an opponent to be truly challenging he should be able to go one-on-one with the PC even in unfavorable conditions, such as when the PC gets the drop on said NPC and thus gets to attack first. I do agree that a challenging opponent should give the PC a run for his money if the PC does not get the drop on him, but an opponent with the defenses listed in your example can only be defeated by a PC who does get the drop on him as he can counter everything the PC does otherwise. That quickly goes from 'challenge' to 'frustration' as everything you try either fails or bounces back in your face. While the AoE on the nullification spell helps the NPC, I accounted for it since it can only get so large and still be cast-able even with Fortify Magicka in large amounts running.

As far as the 'too hard' part, there is a difference between an opponent that is hard to damage, whether that be due to high natural DR, Agility, or Combat skills, and one with 100% Reflect who is, by definition, impossible to damage by any means other than non-magical ranged combat as any other attack will be turned back on the sender, to include enchantments on said ranged weapons.

A group of NPCs working against the PC is exactly the sort of thing I would go for, since countering that requires tactics rather than brute force regardless of how powerful you are. Similarly with traps, although in their current implementation traps are easily seen and disarmed unless the PC blindly rushes ahead and triggers them. I would take a page from Fallout 2 here and make traps hard to find unless you deliberately look for them, but I have a feeling that wouldn't go over too well with some folks.

The alternate conditions you propose the PC face could prove interesting, although how much challenge they add would depend on how they are set up and how smart/stupid any person the PC has to defend is.

Now, a NPC who can cast 100% Reflect of some sort, rather than having it from the beginning, would be more acceptable since one can use Silence to block such a casting should one achieve surprise. One possibility I would go for is for said NPC to cast Chameleon if he sees you and change locations to make it harder to track him. That gives more use to Detect Life and Dispel, since they would make said NPC a lot less annoying when he cannot hide from you. Chameleon also does not break if one attacks, so you would not necessarily find him even when he did hit you without some means of detecting him.

All of this is still only one specific NPC though, and having all high-end opponents be like that would get tedious in short order. That was the basis for my comment about non-scaled high-end opposition being no match for the PC, since it is unlikely that all high-end opposition would receive such a treatment nor would it make sense if they did (see: complaints re: Goblins/Ogres). Thus, having some creatures that do scale, at least to some extent, to high-level PCs is one of the few applications that can be applied across a broad spectrum of opponents to insure at least some challenge remains for high-end PCs. Note that, despite my use of the words 'broad spectrum', I do not mean 'apply this to everything'; rather, I mean use the same mechanic on several select opponents such that only those few scale and the others remain in their limited level ranges.

That's where we disagree. An opponent only has to be challenging in the context of the encounter, not by himself. If the PC needs to protect someone or something, this is part of the encounter as well. If the encounter happens in total darkness, and the NPC has permanent Detect Life goggles, this as well. The goal here is to make the game harder, not any single NPC or mob. This works with static levels quite nicely.

Replace the single opponent with an army, and the place to defend with a town the size of the IC in Oblivion. Now the PC can be as powerful as he likes, even so far as being able to destroy any single attacker group all by himself, but the encounter is still very, very hard, due to the PC not being able to be at multiple places at once - even going so far as being impossible to "win" the encounter with a 100% completion, meaning parts of the town will get damaged or destroyed, and the player has to judge what he can afford to lose.

Such large-scale encounters are the sort of thing I like, provided the opposition isn't excessively strong (as is the case in all too many RTS campaign scenarios), since tactics is the only way you're actually going to pull out a win even if you have a power that lets you obliterate even the strongest opposition unit in one shot due to there being 6 more where that came from on the other side of the map.

I think I see the point of our disagreement, although I could be off: you seem to be referring to set-piece engagements, such as the fight with Mannimarco, whereas I am referring to the opponent in question as merely one of the many a given PC will encounter over the course of his/her career. In the former case it makes perfect sense that the NPC should (potentially, at least) have the advantage since you are trying to get past him in some way, while in the latter what I am concerned with is the placement of said NPC's difficulty level relative to the other content, of which he is only a small part, in which case his difficulty needs to not be too far above the other content meant for characters of the appropriate caliber or he will be routinely avoided as being not worth the hassle.

Taken in the context of being an individual objective, then having a specific NPC be particularly hard to best is not necessarily a bad thing, provided the challenge is set up such that there is more than one solution. Assuming such is the case, then I have no problem with some individuals sticking out from the rest of that group of opponents since he/she is supposed to be that way. If that means it takes multiple tries to beat said individual that's fine, so long as no one method is completely useless unless specifically called for due to a quest script (such as needing the Rose of Sithis to successfully assassinate Adamus Phillippa for that one DB quest).

When considered as being only one member of the set of opponents aimed at high-level characters, having an opponent that stands well above the difficulty of the others is more likely to cause players to avoid that opponent due to the effort involved being out of line with the other opposition. Now, I can make an exception for 'Boss'-type opponents of the sort faced at the end of a Faction or Main quest-line, since they should be difficult opponents. Now, if said individual is only one of several who stand out from the main group of high-end creatures it is less of an issue since said subgroup is intended to stand out as that group of opponents who can consistently provide even the most powerful PCs with challenging fights.

It is this latter group, those opponents meant to square off against top-end characters, which is the basis for my claim that a challenging opponent should be so regardless of circumstances, since there is no one non-quest circumstance in which this group will be encountered, thus no one circumstance in which they should offer a challenge. That there could be circumstances in which they are more challenging than in others is fine, since they will be found in a broad range of locations and situations, but regardless of where and in what state such opponents are found they should still present a challenge to any PC who happens to run into them unless specifically meant not to.

This is how I hope Bethesda approaches NPC and creature design in ES V. :goodjob:

I was just going to lurk... but I couldn't resist after I saw this post.

I offer an alternative: The ability to leave LS on, or turn it off.
That shouldn't be too hard to implement.

Additional Thoughts:
One of my favorite pastimes in Morrowind, was sneaking around and stealing loot that was way too powerful for me at such a low level.
Level Scaling should NOT determine what loot I find.

I just wish in this game it says to a basic realism, as for example no matter how high of a level you are should you be able to one hit kill a minotaur with a longsword, with the exception of a certain high level magic spell that massively drains your mana pool.

I believe level scaling is a good thing, if it is used wisely and within reason, for example, instead of this bandit's level is = to the pc -1, lets say bandits have a minimum level of 2 and a maximum of 13, because lets face it, they're bandits, they aren't going to be all powerful, but they also are going to at least know the basics, vampires should actually be vampires, use a similar system to the bandits then add vampire abilities, all of them. I also think that there are some places you just shouldn't go at lower level because you WILL die. Storming a daedric ruin for example, WILL get you KILLED. Items with level scaling I think was a bad idea, it makes people hold off on doing quests and exploring dungeons because if they wait until they are a higher level they will get a better item, with that being said if you look at Morrowind the items were sometimes just god-like, and I think they should most definitely be toned down. Also, damage (among other things) should be more skill based and less item based, similar to fallout 3's approach.

So basically yes level scaling is a good thing, however it has to be much more complicated than simply, everything levels with you, because that's not how a world functions. Rats are always going to be around and they are always going to be rats, we have to accept that, at the same time daedra will always be around and be ready to kill anything that stands between them and their goals. Also, not all guards should be able to take on anything and everything, always found that odd that some of the strongest opponents were guards, more so since they always come in multiples.

While I agree with you that leveled items is a bit silly, allowing low-level characters to obtain really powerful items can be game-breaking. It's basically a no-win situation for the developers; if they deny the powerful stuff until one reaches a certain level people will complain about leveled loot, but if they allow the powerful stuff to be obtained early much of the game can be trivialized. There's really no good answer here, unfortunately.

Your creature ideas are similar to the system I would use, which utilizes complex leveled lists as well as minimum levels in some locations. Under my system, scaling is limited to a preset range for a given creature class (Rat, Goblin, Daedra, etc.), and within each class there are 1-5 subclasses which each have their own level range. Now, these classes and level ranges are not mutually exclusive; instead of just Warlords and Shamans in high-level Goblin encounters, for example, there could be weak ones as well. There are also a small number of creatures/NPCs who have a high minimum level, scale indefinitely with the player but at a lesser rate, and are only found in those locations marked as having a high minimum spawn level. These are intended to keep things interesting for top-end characters with godly gear who would trample all over anything less, and would have markedly better combat AI to boot.

Under my system there would be no sudden replacement of creatures; there could be Rats, Wolves, Minotaurs, and Dreughs all in the same area at once at higher levels, instead of only Minotaurs and/or Dreughs, for example. While I have no provision for doing so it wouldn't be hard to tweak a couple of lists to allow for the possibility of getting something you really shouldn't be fighting yet, although I would suggest putting a limit on just how far above the norm such a spawn could go. After all, it wouldn't be much fun if you didn't at least get the chance to escape.

NPCs are somewhat more complicated, since there is the added issue of equipment; it should make sense for the faction, rank of individuals therein, and their given specialty. Whether or not it should improve as the character does is a tricky issue: if it does, you end up with every third bandit or marauder in full Daedric, and if it doesn't you can end up fighting through a horde of same and coming out with 6 sets of Fur and/or Iron after an hour of brutal fighting- the latter isn't likely to go over well when the character in question is level 45. Which is somewhat ironic, since a motley collection of Fur and/or Iron armor would be quite fitting for a Bandit hideout, with perhaps the odd high-end set on a leader-type and maybe some good items in the loot chest.

What about this one? Have the really powerful items "unlock" their true power only after they "attuned" themselves to the wielder - that is, only after the character used that item for a considerable time.

Sure, you can get Umbra at level 1 (as you can in Oblivion ...). But it will be barely better than a normal steel sword for you until you fought a hundred fights with it, and killed a hundred mighty adversaries.

Oh, and this normal steel sword you bought from a blacksmith at level 3? If you use that instead, it can get mysterious powers, a history and finally an own True Name, become an artefact itself.

I love him too.

In order for this to work, there would need to be incentive to keep using, to borrow your example, a Steel Sword when one has access to base weapons that are far more effective, such as Ebony or Daedric. One possibility (which I know some folks would hate on principle) could be that the Master Trainer for Blade and/or Armorer would recognize the item(s) in question and drop a hint or two that it might be more than it seems. It would then be up to the player to take the hint and run with it or not.

On the other hand, I've never really liked the idea of being stuck with a cruddy weapon only to have it suddenly become the '+10 Godslayer Blade of Doom?' after some unknown predetermined threshold has been reached/crossed. That's always felt to me like the developers said "O.K., we feel you've been getting your ass soundly kicked for long enough so we're taking pity on you now", since said weapon tends to be the only thing capable of killing the top-end critters. Fortunately, the TES series stays well away from this in almost all cases.

That said, if handled well this could prove an interesting way to at least partially ameliorate the 'weapon shift' issue created by tiered item lists.

That's why it first becomes "The steel sword that General Masters used to kill the Goblin King", then "The steel sword that General Masters used when conquering the city towns of Bjorkgard", then "General Masters' signature steel sword, a blade which never loses its edge nor dents." and finally, after many, many steps, "Hurtsomuch, +10 Godslayer Blade of Doom, legendary blade of the equally legendary General Masters".

That's what I figured you meant, I just happen to have a dislike for what I call 'artificial weapon inflation'.

I do like the ability to improve my equipment, though, so I suppose a modified version of this would work.

Also the reason I made this poll was when i was thinking about how level scaled loot took away reason to go loot hunting. By giving the player the only sword, or any item, they will need right at the beginning of the game and having it level with them removes all possible reason to hunt for loot. Might as well not have loot or items at all, just let the player pick an archetype of armour and weapon and its use will increase as the players levels.

I can see how this would streamline a game. But for me the progression of an Elder Scrolls game is half in the character half in the loot.

Really now?

I mean, the knights of the round table had all the items they could ever need at that point. So they had no reason at all, not a single reason, to look for the Holy Grail, right?

Even earlier, Arthur (the future king) was looking forward to become a knight himself, and he wouldn't have problems equipping himself. No reason to take Excalibur (which wasn't all that better than a normal sword - after all, he could simply break it once in a fit of rage ...), at all, right?

Really, though: Artefacts have power beyond just their game mechanics. Excalibur's main "power" was that only the true heir of Uthar Pendragon could take it out of its stone - that's all. It was a fine blade for sure, but its main magic was lying the fact that it was famous.

Get rid of the concept entirely. Why should you only encounter weak enemies when you're weak and only see strong enemies when you're strong? The game should be built so you can use some ingenuity to win. For example, I have Oblivion for the PC and installed the FCOM mod. I was in an alyied ruin and encountered a mage far stronger than I was. So I ran away through some of those swinging blade traps. The mage (who had almost killed me just while I was running away) ran right through them and got killed by them, saving my life through some of my own intelligence.

Good games give the player incentive to level up, not incentive to stay as low as possible so enemies get stronger. It's a testament to how much time you put into a game to be able to kill enemies you couldn't before. Get rid of it entirely and never bring it back.

They could add in the skill requirements that "open" up the weapon to be used. I know limitations like that might be a bit frustrating these days for certain types of players, but it would show the player that the skills are really worth rising and that they reward the player for his/her efforts.

And another thing, one would suspect that the higher level "powerful" weapons wouldn't be there just waiting to be picked by a low lever character (that would be just stupid). Certainly they would be at spots where the player needs to actually do something (chance of succes withing the limits of his abilities) to get them.


The level scaling.... Best kind, imo, would be one that both requires and encourages the player to improve his skills to manage in the gameworld and complete quests. This could happen via the zoned scaling similiar to what Fallout 3 had, but without locked levels after the PC arrives to the zone and without the game being scaled to the player in the MQ areas. Rather completely randomized enemies within the "level limits" of the zone regardless of the player level.

The greatest downfall of Oblivion was the implemented leveling syetem when pplaced alongside the scaling. Leveling was counter-intuitive and often counterproductive at higher levels. In order to create a better leveling system the firststep is to understand the variables involved as well as level itself.

Level
Level is an abstractrepresentation of total character progression. However there is an issue here, in Oblivion (and Morrowind) the difference in total numerical strength between a level 1 and level 2 character can be as great as 12 attribute points (even before considering the ramifications of increasing non-class skills). To extrapolate that out further; In a difference of ten levels you can gain anywhere between 30 and 150 attribute point. Which means that your level has almost no ability to represent your total ability.

Oblivion Scaled...
Oblivion used a style of scaling with uncapped numbers, allowing certain enemies to scale effectively indefinitely... While the player was restricted to capped formulae preventing attributes and skills from having any real effect past 100. This produced a situation in which gaining levels once your combat stats had maxed was actuallg increasing the difficulty of the game.

What to Do
The first amnd most important thing needed to remove Oblivion's issue is by uncapping the formulae. In the cases where there are possible exploits it is simply a matter of switching to a diminishing returns formula past the "100" point. For those who are interested I have some possible formulae to implement which give a rough estimate of possible progression. Furthermore the percentile implementation of armor would have to be removed and a more scaled type of damage system implemented to allow armor ratings to scale beyond an artificial cap (85% anyone?). In order to remove the "expected power level disparity" a level in the vein of Galsiah's Character Developmemnt and similar mods for Morrowind. Effectively skills would progress indefinitely given the investment, as well as stats, and total stat growth would be used to determine character level. This would allow a more "exact" determination of power level in reference to level, however it would necessitate certain stats to be "discounted" when determining level (speed, personality). Note that growth rate of stats would have to be unique to each character, as in GCD, to allow each character to be a beautiful special snowflake. A further change is to allow for spell effects scaling with their relevant skill, allowing even a relatively weak spell to remain useful for long periods of time.

And the Rest
And now with the fundamental flaw in Oblivion's scaling addressed the rest has to be examined. The world-wide progression in enemy power has had a less than friendl reaction from the community at large and so must be addressed. The first is in limited scaling of enemies within a given region. Much like in Morrowind enemies would be determined by region, and chosen from lists there, with many regions posing distinct dangers to the player should they be ill equipped. However with danger comes reward, as loot would be similarly scaled, as in little at all. Human enemies would have common armor types, while certain enemies would sport powerful armors and weapons. More importantly the rarest weapon and armor types would appear only a few times in the game, and artifact level equipment would be unmatched by any other items of their type. This allows for a feel of distinct progression. The next innovation is in HOw enemies spawn. Rather tahn weaker enemies being phased out completely leveled lists would be cumulative, spawning every enemy of the list at once. This means that as level increases enemies become more numerous and include more dangerous combatants alongside the weaker ones. This means that once "maximal" levels in an area are reached combat within the area remains interesting as you deal with large hordes of enemies, though you retain the distinct feeling of progression when you are able to mow down the weaker horde.

Item levels for merchants will become fixed, with little scaling, based on the economy of a given area. And the economy can change over time, allowing newer more interesting items to occur even in the starting area. The old-style barter system simply MUST make a return to make merchant characters more interesting. Dungeon areas rather than simply respawning will alter their contents as time progresses, and have a much longer respawn timer (in the range of 1-3 in-game weeks). The change would produce a more "real" environment rather than the static world of Oblivion. Quest rewards (and quests themselves) would have no scaling possibilities, in general rewards would either be useful for long periods or would be interesting abilities.

In Conclusion
There are a number of possible changes to implement beyond my personal preference, however any system must acknowledge the main purpose of both the system of levels and the core of RPG gaming. In order for a game to remain compelling it has to be rewarding and intuitive in its progression, otherwise its reception is dampened and its replayability is left at the wayside. Oblivion in my mind was a test, a test to see what the reception of its systems would be; and a test, which in my opinion, failed. In future releases it would serve Bethesda well to return to the core of RPG's and examine what they truly wish to produce rather than simply wrapping a flawed system in colorful and eye-catching trappings. Of course we all know, in the bottoms of our hearts, that no matter what Bethesda produces we will eagerly buy and play it since we are, as all gamers, addicted to the new and the challenging; and no matter the game there is always a challenge to find within.

I want no level scaling for realism and so you have to think and not just run in or toss in a spell or shoot a arrow.